Should capital punishment apply to juveniles? Under what circumstances? Explain.
Below is a Sample Solution.
Remember! This is just a sample. You can get a custom paper from one of our expert writers.
This a personal opinion question that would require for you to answer it according to the existing data. The best way of looking at this question is, do you believe that criminal justice should allow for the execution of juveniles, I put some notes down here to give you perspective on the matter.
In Kent v US, Justice Fortas in 1966 held that without a formal process, juveniles should not be transferred to adult court. Should juveniles be treated as adults like they were in the 19th century? Does age, race, gender matter? Should it matter to an issue of justice?
The juvenile justice system is based upon a philosophy of parens patriae, and the idea that youth are not “bad” but in need of reform if they commit offenses.
Harris
For example, in the United States scholars have suggested that the classical emphasis on the rule of law – the basis of intended “equal justice”- was increasingly supplanted by the rhetoric and goal of rehabilitation by the turn of the twentieth century. …However, it gradually became clear to many that significant discretion in criminal sentencing decisions, as required by the rehabilitative paradigm, led to racial disparities in sentencing. As a result, discretionary decisionmaking in the 1960s and 1970s was largely discredited. Over the following decades, a variety of policies aimed at reducing discretion in the courts have been adopted. …This trend has been described as an attempt to move from substantive reasoning toward formal reasoning to justify decisions.”
During the mid to late 20th century, the juvenile justice system changed. Get tough on crime policies impacted the juvenile justice system when laws changed to allow juvenile transfers from the juvenile justice system to adult criminal justice system; the impact is a change from a rehabilitative philosophy that the juvenile can change to one that supposes that the juvenile cannot be helped and must be punished.
By the end of the 20th century, the movement towards procedural protections changed from an approach to help youth to one where youth are to one where youth are to be feared and punished as adults.
Should juveniles be given life sentences without parole? The US Supreme Court said no, but with a more conservative Court, that decision could be changed.
The US Supreme Court has stepped in and decided a number of cases to place limits on the punishment metted to juveniles transferred to adult court.The rulings acknowlege the basic principle that started the juvenile justice system, that juveniles lack the maturity to fully appreciate the wrongfullness of their conduct and deserve a chance to be rehabilitated, educated and released from confinement.
Roper v Simmons (2005) – holding that a person who was under 18 years of age when he committed a crime cannot be sentenced to death pursuant to the 8th and 14th Amendments.
Graham v Florida (2010)- holding that a juvenile offender convicted of a non-homicide offense cannot be sentenced to life without parole pursuant to the 8th and 14th Amendments.
Miller v Alabama (2012)- holding that sentencing a juvenile offender convicted of a homicide offense to life imprisonment without the opportunity for parole violates the 8th and 14th Amendments.
Montgomery v Alabama (2016) – holding that the Miller decision is to be applied retroactively to other juvenile offenders sentenced before the Millerdecison was issued.
The Court is saying that it matters who the offender is and punishment has to be proportionate to the offense and the individual offender.
– Court is demonstrating that it has the same views with Juveniles when it comes to conservative or liberal courts. This means that courts think that opportunities should be given to youths since they are lacking in maturity.